On Large-scale Evaluation of Embedding Models for Knowledge Graph Completion

• URL: http://arxiv.org/abs/2504.08970v1
• Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2025 20:49:02 GMT
• Title: On Large-scale Evaluation of Embedding Models for Knowledge Graph Completion
• Authors: Nasim Shirvani-Mahdavi, Farahnaz Akrami, Chengkai Li,
• Abstract summary: Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models are extensively studied for knowledge graph completion, yet their evaluation remains constrained by unrealistic benchmarks.<n>Standard evaluation metrics rely on the closed-world assumption, which penalizes models for correctly predicting missing triples.<n>This paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of four representative KGE models on large-scale datasets FB-CVT-REV and FB+CVT-REV.
• Score: 1.2703808802607108
• License: http://arxiv.org/licenses/nonexclusive-distrib/1.0/
• Abstract: Knowledge graph embedding (KGE) models are extensively studied for knowledge graph completion, yet their evaluation remains constrained by unrealistic benchmarks. Commonly used datasets are either faulty or too small to reflect real-world data. Few studies examine the role of mediator nodes, which are essential for modeling n-ary relationships, or investigate model performance variation across domains. Standard evaluation metrics rely on the closed-world assumption, which penalizes models for correctly predicting missing triples, contradicting the fundamental goals of link prediction. These metrics often compress accuracy assessment into a single value, obscuring models' specific strengths and weaknesses. The prevailing evaluation protocol operates under the unrealistic assumption that an entity's properties, for which values are to be predicted, are known in advance. While alternative protocols such as property prediction, entity-pair ranking and triple classification address some of these limitations, they remain underutilized. This paper conducts a comprehensive evaluation of four representative KGE models on large-scale datasets FB-CVT-REV and FB+CVT-REV. Our analysis reveals critical insights, including substantial performance variations between small and large datasets, both in relative rankings and absolute metrics, systematic overestimation of model capabilities when n-ary relations are binarized, and fundamental limitations in current evaluation protocols and metrics.

Related papers

• Benchmarking community drug response prediction models: datasets, models, tools, and metrics for cross-dataset generalization analysis [36.689210473887904]
  We introduce a benchmarking framework for evaluating cross-dataset prediction generalization in deep learning (DL) and machine learning (ML) models.<n>We quantify both absolute performance (e.g., predictive accuracy across datasets) and relative performance (e.g., performance drop compared to within-dataset results)<n>Our results reveal substantial performance drops when models are tested on unseen datasets, underscoring the importance of rigorous generalization assessments.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-03-18T15:40:18Z)
• Rethinking Relation Extraction: Beyond Shortcuts to Generalization with a Debiased Benchmark [53.876493664396506]
  Benchmarks are crucial for evaluating machine learning algorithm performance, facilitating comparison and identifying superior solutions. This paper addresses the issue of entity bias in relation extraction tasks, where models tend to rely on entity mentions rather than context. We propose a debiased relation extraction benchmark DREB that breaks the pseudo-correlation between entity mentions and relation types through entity replacement. To establish a new baseline on DREB, we introduce MixDebias, a debiasing method combining data-level and model training-level techniques.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2025-01-02T17:01:06Z)
• Developing a Dataset-Adaptive, Normalized Metric for Machine Learning Model Assessment: Integrating Size, Complexity, and Class Imbalance [0.0]
  Traditional metrics like accuracy, F1-score, and precision are frequently used to evaluate machine learning models.<n>A dataset-adaptive, normalized metric that incorporates dataset characteristics like size, feature dimensionality, class imbalance, and signal-to-noise ratio is presented.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-12-10T07:10:00Z)
• Optimizing Sequential Recommendation Models with Scaling Laws and Approximate Entropy [104.48511402784763]
  Performance Law for SR models aims to theoretically investigate and model the relationship between model performance and data quality.<n>We propose Approximate Entropy (ApEn) to assess data quality, presenting a more nuanced approach compared to traditional data quantity metrics.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-11-30T10:56:30Z)
• Conformal Prediction for Federated Graph Neural Networks with Missing Neighbor Information [2.404163279345609]
  This study extends the applicability of Conformal Prediction to federated graph learning. We tackle the missing links issue in distributed subgraphs to minimize its adverse effects on CP set sizes. We introduce a Variational Autoencoder-based approach for reconstructing missing neighbors to mitigate the negative impact of missing data.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-10-17T20:22:25Z)
• On Evaluation of Vision Datasets and Models using Human Competency Frameworks [20.802372291783488]
  Item Response Theory (IRT) is a framework that infers interpretable latent parameters for an ensemble of models and each dataset item. We assess model calibration, select informative data subsets, and demonstrate the usefulness of its latent parameters for analyzing and comparing models and datasets in computer vision.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-09-06T06:20:11Z)
• Numerical Literals in Link Prediction: A Critical Examination of Models and Datasets [2.5999037208435705]
  Link Prediction models that incorporate numerical literals have shown minor improvements on existing benchmark datasets. It is unclear whether a model is actually better in using numerical literals, or better capable of utilizing the graph structure. We propose a methodology to evaluate LP models that incorporate numerical literals.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2024-07-25T17:55:33Z)
• Bring Your Own Data! Self-Supervised Evaluation for Large Language Models [52.15056231665816]
  We propose a framework for self-supervised evaluation of Large Language Models (LLMs) We demonstrate self-supervised evaluation strategies for measuring closed-book knowledge, toxicity, and long-range context dependence. We find strong correlations between self-supervised and human-supervised evaluations.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-06-23T17:59:09Z)
• Think Twice: Measuring the Efficiency of Eliminating Prediction Shortcuts of Question Answering Models [3.9052860539161918]
  We propose a simple method for measuring a scale of models' reliance on any identified spurious feature. We assess the robustness towards a large set of known and newly found prediction biases for various pre-trained models and debiasing methods in Question Answering (QA) We find that while existing debiasing methods can mitigate reliance on a chosen spurious feature, the OOD performance gains of these methods can not be explained by mitigated reliance on biased features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-05-11T14:35:00Z)
• Studying How to Efficiently and Effectively Guide Models with Explanations [52.498055901649025]
  'Model guidance' is the idea of regularizing the models' explanations to ensure that they are "right for the right reasons" We conduct an in-depth evaluation across various loss functions, attribution methods, models, and 'guidance depths' on the PASCAL VOC 2007 and MS COCO 2014 datasets. Specifically, we guide the models via bounding box annotations, which are much cheaper to obtain than the commonly used segmentation masks.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2023-03-21T15:34:50Z)
• Exploring validation metrics for offline model-based optimisation with diffusion models [50.404829846182764]
  In model-based optimisation (MBO) we are interested in using machine learning to design candidates that maximise some measure of reward with respect to a black box function called the (ground truth) oracle. While an approximation to the ground oracle can be trained and used in place of it during model validation to measure the mean reward over generated candidates, the evaluation is approximate and vulnerable to adversarial examples. This is encapsulated under our proposed evaluation framework which is also designed to measure extrapolation.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-19T16:57:37Z)
• Discover, Explanation, Improvement: An Automatic Slice Detection Framework for Natural Language Processing [72.14557106085284]
  slice detection models (SDM) automatically identify underperforming groups of datapoints. This paper proposes a benchmark named "Discover, Explain, improve (DEIM)" for classification NLP tasks. Our evaluation shows that Edisa can accurately select error-prone datapoints with informative semantic features.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2022-11-08T19:00:00Z)
• How Faithful is your Synthetic Data? Sample-level Metrics for Evaluating and Auditing Generative Models [95.8037674226622]
  We introduce a 3-dimensional evaluation metric that characterizes the fidelity, diversity and generalization performance of any generative model in a domain-agnostic fashion. Our metric unifies statistical divergence measures with precision-recall analysis, enabling sample- and distribution-level diagnoses of model fidelity and diversity.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2021-02-17T18:25:30Z)
• Meta-Learned Confidence for Few-shot Learning [60.6086305523402]
  A popular transductive inference technique for few-shot metric-based approaches, is to update the prototype of each class with the mean of the most confident query examples. We propose to meta-learn the confidence for each query sample, to assign optimal weights to unlabeled queries. We validate our few-shot learning model with meta-learned confidence on four benchmark datasets.
  arXiv  Detail & Related papers  (2020-02-27T10:22:17Z)

This list is automatically generated from the titles and abstracts of the papers in this site.

This site does not guarantee the quality of this site (including all information) and is not responsible for any consequences.